LGBT Extremism And The Right To Private Property

[QuestionMan]

Recently several states in the US have passed laws allowing for businesses and public institutions to deny services to LGBTs under the guise of protecting religious freedom.

The problem with these laws is that instead of allowing individuals to choose who they provide service to, as should be their right it actively targets LGBTs and promotes discrimination.

Refusal of service is nothing new. As I’m sure you’ve heard from LGBT activists they will compare this law to Jim Crow laws or apartheid South Africa.

To a certain extent they are right. Denying PUBLIC services to any individual is wrong. Public services are paid by everyone’s taxes and are meant to benefit everyone. So a county clerk refusing to recognize a gay marriage regardless of her stance on the matter is a violation of the law.

Private enterprises however are the result of the blood and sweat put in by individuals to make a profit. These businesses are designed with a specific target market and a desire to succeed in the market.

A smart business person would allow customers of all walks of life to purchase their product and have access to their services as long as the service provided was within reason.

Two common reasons to refuse service is if the person is not dressed or intoxicated.

In the above video a man tried to buy a Confederate cake and as you well know, Confederate symbols have been removed from stores all across America after the Dylann Roof terrorist attack.

If the business has the right to deny making a Confederate flag cake, why doesn’t it have the right to deny making a gay marriage cake?

The answer is simple, the pressure from social justice warriors. They believe that the state must legislate morality. According to them since they view the Confederate flag as a symbol of hate, it is perfectly fine to ban it but gay marriage is a symbol of love so not making the cake makes you a bigot.

Ayn Rand addressed the issue perfectly in regards to segregation and it can still be applied today.

The LGBTs love to target businesses that do not cater to them instead of simply going to another establishment which would be happy to serve them.

As Ayn Rand mentioned, if you don’t like a company’s policies then protest and boycott. This will either force the business to change its policies or go out of business. If however the clientele that it serves is enough to give it a reasonable profit then the owner should feel free to be a bigot, it is his/her right to conduct the business in their best interests.

The LGBTs use their activism in a crusade against individuals that are uncomfortable around them. They attack religion and promote hatred and intolerance towards those who worship a higher power.

Now believe it or not, I’m an atheist. You’d assume I’d be the first person in line to take a stab at religion. I obviously have my own problems with religion otherwise I wouldn’t be an atheist but I respect the individual’s right to believe whatever they want to believe as long as they don’t promote hatred or infringe on my beliefs.

This new law was meant to combat LGBT extremism by giving businesses the right to refuse service to members of this group. The problem with this law however is that it is a religious law that explicitly targets LGBTs instead of allowing a business to choose who it serves.

Discrimination be it by or against LGBTs is wrong. This law needs to be repealed and replaced with one that allows businesses to refuse service to whomever they see fit.

This myTake was inspired by @Intraluminal @FakeName123 @CandyStripes77

[Spiorad_Aisce]

I am very much saddened that we are playing into the hands of extreme views here which leads to backlashes back and forth. First of all I am not American so I may get a legality wrong but my understanding is the supreme court made same sex marriage legal countrywide, that should make supporters of same sex couples happy. So why go to the fundamentalist religious centre for a blessing or the Holy Joe Bakery for a cake where you know you will be refused so you can create a stink. A state official will not deal with you politely ask for someone else to deal with your application because it is a federally legal process. It should clearly indicated that clerk A will not deal with certain applications and for the sake of a quiet life go to clerk B. I feel it is an acclimatising situation, in an earlier take response I talked about the Irish situation when the constitutional amendment was passed legalising same sex marriage last may, both sides accepted result with a live and let live attitude. There hasn't been one newsworthy piece since unless someone famous had a same sex marriage. Don't create a fuss about it and there will be no fuss about it.

[QuestionMan]

I feel like we should get other the whole gay marriage thing. Although I'm not a fan of calling it a marriage and will always believe that it's between a man and a woman, it's best to put this behind us. Live and let live as you said.

[SüßeJäger]

Many would go into a place like that just to rub it in their noses. Seems the gay community is really good at that. I think they would be far more accepted by more people not to do things like that. However, you're assuming they really want "equal" rights. That's not the case, they want special treatment over other groups. Of course not all are this way but enough that it pushes people who might be more accepting away. They don't want to be disliked cuz of their culture or how the choose to live their life but they turn around and call people in the south or Christians extremists, inbred, rednecks, morons and any other nasty thing cuz their culture is different than theirs so it's bad and wrong. It's blatant and in your face hypocrisy they don't even try to hide. It's like being a hypocrite is encouraged and celebrated. Live and let live. Let them live how they feel they want to and let the people of another culture live how they want. If there's a bakery that's owned by Christians

[QuestionMan]

@SüßeJäger Exactly. What saddens me even more is that they do it under the banner of atheism. They make reasonable atheists like myself appear to be associated with them and because of that people of faith start to see me negatively.

[SüßeJäger]

That does not service gays, go to another place that's happy to take your money. I know it's possible that you would not even know they are gay and I'm sure nobody would ask that ask a prerequisite question but that's not the point, the point is live and let live. I'm Christian and gays getting "married" has never mattered to me cuz I nor my church has to recognize their "marriage" is real. To me it's a personal thing you do, the piece of paper you get from the govt that gives you permission to do something you don't need their permission for is a moot point. You can see it as marriage, I can see it as nothing. Everyone is happy. Of course, they would force me to recognize it if that were possible too. As long as your not interfering with another's same rights, you should have the right to do as you please. That's liberty.

[Intraluminal]

Religious people can not think. As a matter of fact, religion teaches them *NOT* to think. They would think badly of you if each and every gay person in America was a canonized saint from whom holy oil flowed in continuous streams. You are an UNBELIEVER and an INFIDEL. Nothing you do (or don't do) will make them accept you or atheism in general. Don't bother pandering to their insanity, because it won't work. The only thing that will work is frustrating their attempts to push their religion down other people's throats over and over until their hatred and their need to control others backs up and kills them.

[Intraluminal]

As a European I would think you would know better. That's how HItler started. People were saying, "Come on! Wear the yellow Star-of-David! It's just a patch. No big deal! Just make them happy and don't create a fuss about it and there will be no fuss about it!

Then a three years later... Oh, look! They're building prison camps... It's no big deal. Look, so you stay there for a few months until they find somewhere else for you and the kids to stay...

Martin Niemöller a prominent Protestant pastor who spent the last seven years of Nazi rule in concentration camps, said:

First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Socialist.

Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Trade Unionist.

Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Jew.

Then they came for me—
and there was no one left to speak for me.

[Intraluminal]

I would think you would know better. That's how HItler started. People were saying, "Come on! Wear the yellow Star-of-David! It's just a patch. No big deal! Live and let live!

Then a three years later... Oh, look! They're building prison camps... It's no big deal. Look, so you stay there for a few months until they find somewhere else for you and the kids to stay...

Martin Niemöller a prominent Protestant pastor who spent the last seven years of Nazi rule in concentration camps, said:

First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Socialist.

Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Trade Unionist.

Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Jew.

Then they came for me—
and there was no one left to speak for me.

[QuestionMan]

@Intraluminal As I wrote in the myTake, I'm against state sanctioned discrimination which is exactly what happened in Germany. If a business person says I'll put up a sign saying "No Jews allowed" his bigotry will be punished by the market.

[Intraluminal]

Wow! A Jew forgetting how the hi Holocaust worked. Frightening. I never thought it would have to be relearned. Smh.

[skeptic007]

Spiorad_Aisce
you gotta understand this isn't the first time the gay movement has happened,
this will probably be the 4th or 5th time actually, and ever single time it dies hard
so honestly im not worried let them talk say all the things they want, it will die hard just like the other times

[QuestionMan]

@Intraluminal The Holocaust was a result of racist Nazi state policies. Businesses started to ban Jews because the state mandated it. There were no such discriminatory signs on German businesses before Hitler.

[Intraluminal]

There are NOT yet discriminatory signs in Mississippi, but now, thanks to the State's law, it would be legal. There is already a process put in place by the Act for people to state their personal policy.

"Pursuant to the Act we do not serve gays or any LGBTI"

by the way, I CAN'T WAIT for this Act to bite them all on the ass. If there's any way to feed it, I will.

[skeptic007]

@Intraluminal
you are an idiot im reading everything you say, all im hearing is hatred towards Christians, while the other guy says he doesn't care what people do, you are an idiot

[hellionthesage]

Well its seems to me to be quite similar to what the neo nazis/kkk did in the south. They would actively have parades/rallies in black neighbor hoods in order to enrage the locals, and honestly a lot of what is happening with homosexuality, as you pointed out, seems awfully familiar. I actually recall a flower shop (I believe) getting sued because the person believed marriage was between man and woman, they actually explicitly said they had no problem wiht homosexuality (they even served this homosexual couple before for other events) but because they didn't believe in it they where sued. Seems hypocritical to demand tolerance of others and not give it your self. As for marriage, @QuestionMan I would say that currently while the original marriage was a (reproductive) contract between man and woman, currently their are so many other parts attached to it currently where it does make sense to extend it since you have laws ranging from seeing your spouse in the hospital to insurance etc

[hellionthesage]

all of which are bound to marriage. If the person is dying in the hospital their partner would not be legally allowed to see them because only family members are allowed which they are technicly not. Same goes for insurance and several other factors. Plus marriage has evolved to be more symbolic then it was historicly so that should also be taken into account. As I said originally yes it was specificly a male-female contract but in its current form it incompasses a lot more then previously and I do think that should be accounted for before making a judgment call.(I knew a guy who thought much the same way as you until he found out about all the additional things/laws that came with marriage)

[QuestionMan]

@hellionthesage I agree when it comes to laws for married couples that it should extend to homosexual couples as well. Some are listed here
www.nolo.com/.../...age-rights-benefits-30190.html

My problem is with adoption and calling it a marriage. I see marriage as the union of a man and a woman in hopes of producing children with each parent being an important part of the child's development. Obviously there are single parents and that is the exact reason why many seek to find a partner after a divorce, to ensure the child has both a mom and dad.

I'm strongly against any monetary benefits for marriage since I see that as cheapening the marriage and an attempt to keep couples together.

[hellionthesage]

What monetary benefits? Like tax breaks?

[QuestionMan]

@hellionthesage Yes

[hellionthesage]

I think thats to encourage marriage and inturn encourage reproducing since you know they need more workers in the future (I have even heard that russia is so bad off that they actually have a holiday where people are payed to go home and have sex with their wives in order to hopefully increase the negative birth rate).

[QuestionMan]

@hellionthesage Lol I've never heard of that.
I just have a very strong position against taxation without knowing exactly where each penny goes.
I see it as a form of extortion since I do not consent to having my money go to some married couple or to some welfare recipient. I want my taxes to go towards things that affect everyone:
roads, schools, police, fire department, health care, military and e. t. c.

[hellionthesage]

Fully understand. And yeah I just recently heard about that "holiday" as well.

[QuestionMan]

@hellionthesage Wow it is real but only in one city
www.theguardian.com/.../russia.matthewweaver

[hellionthesage]

Yeah I only gave it a cursory glance but thats how desperate they are apparently.(yet every one claims we are over populated?)

[lime_rampljuset]

Private owned services can deny whoever they want.
I'm bisexual, and I'm agains LGTB extremists, those people need to either grow up and mature, or swallow a grenade and die.

[QuestionMan]

Glad you agree :)

[Intraluminal]

Hi, I'm Intraluminal, and I approve this MyTake. LOL.

However, I predict that such a law could never pass. Why? Because IMMEDIATELY the skinheads down South would start using it to refuse service to black people. Everyone knows that, and they know that it would immediately go to the Supreme Court, where it would be struck down.

By the way, just as a point of interest, I'd like to point out where, historically speaking, the "No shirt, No shoes, No service" sign arose. Back in the day, after the Jim Crow laws were found to be unconstitutional, the wonderful people of the South were scandalized. "What can we do" they said, "we'll have to treat the n***** like people!"

The answer was, of course, what do or in this case don't black people have? Many black people in the South, due to decades of slavery and years of institutionalized discrimination, were poor. What did they most commonly lack? SHOES usually, but often, since they were down south (it's hot as hell down there) and they were most often employed doing manual labor - SHIRTS!

How fortuitous. And so, our famous slogan: No shoes No shirt No service.

[QuestionMan]

Thanks for the inspiration.
I highly doubt that the skinheads would be able to stay in business if they did discriminate.

As for the sign No she's No shirt No service, we have that in several stores in Canada. I specifically remember seeing one at a grocery store.

[Intraluminal]

Athe skinheads down south would *Guarantee* themselves a very loyal following if they could f* over the n*s and get away with it. How long have you lived in Mississippi that you don't know that?

Ss for Canada, the sign eventually lost its original purpose and became a class barrier instead of a race barrier, but that's how it started.

[Psi_Unknown]

Was that actually true? It certainly seems possible, and it does make sense that they would be lacking in shoes and shirts...

[Psi_Unknown]

Wow, finally a coherent argument. It is not perfect, but at least it can be followed. Your question, "If the business has the right to deny making a Confederate flag cake, why doesn’t it have the right to deny making a gay marriage cake?" is a good one. Can't view the video or hear sound though. *sad-face* The truth is people make discriminating choices everyday. They may be right, wrong, neutral, or irrelevant, but they happen. (Those choices can also be inconsistent.) I do kind of agree with the conclusion as a potentially workable solution.

P. S. The no-shirt, no-shoes, no-service signs are funny. It is only a matter of time before people walk-in without pants!

[QuestionMan]

Thanks
Which video are you having trouble viewing?

[Psi_Unknown]

At first, I only clicked the Ayn Rand one. I just tried clicking the second and that wouldn't work either. This browser and operating system has so many problems, can't even see the address! Right clicking doesn't allow me bring it up in another window. I might have seen the snippet before anyway. Oh, got it working, had to right-click a specific area of the windowed video for a right-click in new window option to appear. With this level of complication, I am surprised people even use the internet anymore! The video displays text in Spanish, which might be challenging for English readers. (I have no sound, so don't know what they are saying.)

[QuestionMan]

The subtitles are in Spanish but the video is in English. I think there may be a problem on your end. Check your sound settings.
Try typing into YouTube this suffix
/watch? v=GRpnDAJYjhs

[Psi_Unknown]

I tried searching on Youtube it did not work. Maybe I should just disable all videos and scripts since they don't work right and actually make the computer lag worse. Thanks for trying to help though!

[QuestionMan]

Here's what she said
"No segregation by state government or any government is unconstitutional, contradictory to our American principles and evil. Therefore I would agree with the Civil Rights movement in everything they claim against the right of government, federal or state to enforce segregation by law. A government has no right to discriminate against any citizens. But for all the same reason, I am against the Civil Rights leaders when they claim the right or privilege to enforce anti-segregation laws on private citizens, such as the bill now before Congress to forbid discrimination in private establishments. You cannot legislate morality. You are infringing the right of some men for the benefit of others which means you're abnegating the principle of rights, when you do that. Segregation or race prejudice is certainly evil, but then like any moral issue must be fought by private individuals moral means. In this case, one should fight against segregation by economic boycott..

[QuestionMan]

and social ostracism. Let those White people who do not believe in racism, boycott. If a private racist wants a segregate establishment, let all the White people who believe in equality of rights boycott them. Voluntarily and individually, that will destroy segregation much quicker then anything else will. But above all I want to stress the fact that forcing any moral issue by law is a denial of legality and morality. Remember this, that freedom does not mean the freedom to do right it also means the freedom to be wrong and to be mistaken provided you do not force your errors on anyone. Therefore you all understand and so would all modern liberals understand why we have to defend the communist's freedom of speech, even though his ideas are evil. We don't have to agree with him, we don't have to listen to him, we don't have to give him the means of spreading his ideas, but we have to leave him free to express them if he wants to. In the same way we must allow a racist to express...

[QuestionMan]

his ideas on his own property. If he wants to be a segregationist, it's evil and we have to fight him by moral means, but we cannot violate his rights. We have to protect his rights to be wrong on his own property. We don't have to deal with him".

[Psi_Unknown]

Apologies for the slow response, and thanks for posting that. Interesting take and several good reasons in there, and I agree that if you want people to be free to do right, one must allow them to be free to do wrong. I do also agree about respecting other's rights whether one agrees or not. Hmm, not really sure about whether one legislate morality or not, or whether one needs to? It often seems to be the case that when some get rights, rights are taken away from someone else in my opinion.

[John_Doesnt]

"The LGBTs love to target businesses that do not cater to them instead of simply going to another establishment which would be happy to serve them." A lot of LGBTs live in areas where there aren't many choices or there are no choices. Finding a business that will approve of them is almost impossible in certain areas because of the current bigotry. It's like during the segregation of black people.

Would you fight for the right to refuse service to an interracial couple? Or what about the right to refuse service to someone based on their race? You're no different than the bigots of the 50's who were against sharing bathrooms with the blacks.

[QuestionMan]

The difference being that Blacks would discriminated solely on the colour of their skin. LGBTs can walk into a store and no one would know that they aren't heterosexual unless they drew attention to themselves. Blacks never went into stores demanding that a business make a cake that went against people's religious beliefs.

This has nothing to do with identity but with behaviour and the right to private property.

[John_Doesnt]

LGBTs don't go around into every store showing that they are in fact gay. You can't tell someone is a transgender or gay unless you ask. Yet these laws are still being made.
As for going against cake makers religious beliefs: it was against the law and against many religions for blacks to marry whites at one point in American history. Learn about history and you'll find that you're on the same side of history as the haters of the 50's.

Do you honestly think your beliefs are not hateful and bigoted? Do you honestly think that 50 years from now people will still be just as prejudiced towards LGBTs as they are now? You're on the wrong side of history.

[QuestionMan]

Wrong side of history?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ikjZo7w4pq8

Well most gays don't but those that do, with their gay pride parades and their pushy attitudes are ruining it for everyone. Most people, myself included don't care who you sleep with as long as it's consensual, and no crime is being committed.
Religion has nothing to do with interracial marriage, that is a cultural thing.

I would never support an apartheid like system that existed in the US in the 1950s. I thought I made that clear in the myTake. State forced discrimination is wrong while individual based discrimination will be punished by the market and the community.

I do not hate gays nor am I intolerant towards them. I tolerate them and treat them the same way as any other person I simply dislike homosexuality. So by definition I am not a bigot.

[John_Doesnt]

That video was just a rant about what Barack Obama hasn't done. It had almost nothing to do with this issue. Interracial marriage was as much about religion as gay marriage is. The Christians were the ones who were against blacks marrying whites. It's no different. And in case you haven't noticed black people have their own pride and like to "rub it in people's faces" that they're black. There's nothing wrong with it. They are just trying to get everyone used to the fact that gay people and black people are here to stay.
You are on the wrong side of history because you will be forgotten and probably shamed like the people who were on the side of segregation.

[QuestionMan]

There's a difference between pride an unnecessarily rubbing something in. For example, I am proud of my Ukrainian heritage, I'm proud of what my ancestors did as part of the Soviet army to defend my home but you don't see me yelling it at the top of my lungs and holding parades over it. The majority has nothing against homosexuals as people, they have a problem with homosexual acts. Sex should be a private affair regardless of your sexual orientation. By forcing your views onto others you become no different than the Christian bigots you detest. It's ironic that those that yell bigot the loudest tend to want to push their agenda onto others the hardest.

I would argue that it's the SJWs that are on the wrong side of history. Society cannot continue to allow itself to be bullied by a vocal minority with radical views. But as the video explained, saying someone is on the wrong side of history is just a cop out when you have no legitimate solution.

[Psi_Unknown]

Okay, let think about this for a minute. If businesses had the right to refuse service, they would still be hurting themselves though, correct, even in the 50's? (I don't think you can really equate the LGBT situation to that of the racial 50s.)

[Psi_Unknown]

True and good point. Perceived race is discernible.

[John_Doesnt]

There's an obvious legitimate solution: we tolerate homosexuals the same as any other group. This "problem" is no different then when blacks wanted the same freedom as whites. Homosexuals only want to be treated as equally as heterosexuals. That's it!!! And there were/are black pride parades, people who constantly say on TV "I'm black and I'm proud". And during the million man march they were all screaming at the top of their lungs that they deserved equality and they were proud to be black. They are also showing as many people what black culture is.

As for wrong side of history: it is not a cop out, it is the result of studying history and realizing that society always, ALWAYS, chooses the liberal and tolerant option eventually. Look at the way things were 100 years ago and follow the debates on liberal or conservative laws: liberals always win eventually. They might not have won quickly, but eventually the people chose the liberal tolerant option.

[John_Doesnt]

@Psi_Unknown I can easily equate it to black discrimination because homosexuals are a bigger minority than blacks. When businesses refuse service to homosexuals they are losing more business then when the deny black people. And this point is irrelevant because homosexuals using a store doesn't affect them in any way except for making the owner uncomfortable slightly. They would be no more uncomfortable if a goth came into the store in full black makeup and Insane Clown Posse face.

[John_Doesnt]

@Psi_Unknown not really, because of mixed races and if you pay attention to the "How do I look section" people are constantly asking "Can you guess my race?"
So it's clearly not obvious if people are being challenged to do it.

[QuestionMan]

"homosexuals are a bigger minority than blacks"
That is factually incorrect. Homosexuals make up 3-5% of the population of the US. While Blacks make up about 13.2% of the population.
Why must a business be forced to serve people? It is in the person's best interests to do so.
Moral issues must be combated by moral means not by police officers otherwise we become no different than Saudi Arabia.

[John_Doesnt]

So you would have no problem if the KKK owned businesses and refused to serve blacks or Jews? Would you be okay if the manager of a store was a white supremacist and fired someone if they found out they were Jewish or Muslim? Would you be okay if a store refused someone service because they were a different religion from them? Would you be okay if a Catholic store owner refused to serve any protestants? Would you be okay if an Evangelical Christian owned store refused to serve a Hindu?
Would you be okay with someone refusing to serve any other group or creed?

[John_Doesnt]

Would you be okay with a cake company refusing to make a cake for a black person marrying a white person? (there are still plenty of people against that)
The only group that you are trying to discriminate against are the gays. Is there any other group you would be okay with refusing service to? What if someone refused to serve you because you are against homosexuality?

[QuestionMan]

I'd be ok with all of the above.
The thing is they'd go out of business quite quickly because of boycotts and protests.

[Psi_Unknown]

A lot has been said here. First, I must say, I do not know the answers here. What bothers me is not whether one segrates or not, or allows one side to be legal or not, or one to have parades and another not, but the fact that people, mindsets, and laws are inconsistent.

Why should a group be able to have a gay pride parade, but not an antigay one? Why is it okay for a store to sell Union mugs, but not Confederate ones? While I recognize that incidents have occurred where people were beat up for being gay, I think they are quite rare compared to racial tensions of the past. If segregation is not acceptable, then one should be consistent. I don't have to recognize one person's marriage or not. I have more important things to worry about. But the previous article I read before following to this one was really cognitively dissonant. If segregation is not okay, and you want to force that legally on others, then we should close down gay bars, right?

[Psi_Unknown]

I don't want to be discriminated against anymore than anyone else. Personally, no, I would not okay if some refused to do business over *pick any number of infinite characteristics to refuse service by*, but what do you want me to say or do? How many times do humans make choices that discriminate not just against other humans, but against other species? Is that fair or right? If homosexual people choose to have laws change for marriage equality; I won't stop them, but there is a price to pay for that. (Why the *beep* does government even think it has a right to tell people what marriage or their relationships mean?) And I do agree with the comment below (or above depending on how output is arranged) that many of these businesses would go by the wayside rather quickly. One last question. Is segregation equal?

[ColinHarvey]

The horse is dead, stop hitting it.

Here's the thing: as a religious organization you can choose not to sell someone a cake without a law in place, just say you are overbooked.

Why do we need a fucking law to rub it in everyone's faces. This thing just stands to make some dumb Glenn Beck style statement, when in reality, now Muslims can keep from having to serve other religions in shops they own and openly make a scene out of it on the basis of religious, "freedom." This is the dumbest thing Georgia has ever passed - Atlanta is the gayest place I've ever been!

[rileypantera]

It's not the same. The law allows those businesses to discriminate based on ANY deeply held religious conviction. I can make up a religion tomrrow that would allow me to refuse service to black people and you know that would go over like a turd in a punch bowl, but since It's just "the gays" oh well Jesus can be called upon to shun them from society. hypocrites.

[QuestionMan]

You should be allowed to deny service to whomever you choose. If you deny service to Blacks then expect BLM to protest outside your store and a massive lose in revenue. That should be punishment enough. I see no reason why the state should get involved and fine you.

[rileypantera]

Your right, the law is the law but I'm still pissed that people are so dense to think that Jesus is the one in their corner when they go to hate people for no reason. It's like rewriting the lion king so that scar wins and the lions of Pride rock starve to death, you can't twist the story just to hurt everyone's feelings

[QuestionMan]

My problem with this law as mentioned in the myTake is that it is religiously motivated. If it was simply "you can refuse service to whomever" then I'd fully support it.
We've already seen the effect this law has had on North Carolina with businesses either pulling out or not entering in protest. I doubt this law will remain in its current form for long.

[rileypantera]

I hope you're right

[SunsetRose]

This law makes me mad as hell. Right now it's being discussed in relation to the LGBT community but it could also apply to a person who doesn't want to serve someone based on their religion. Hello discrimination.

[QuestionMan]

Are you referring to people banning Muslims from their stores?
www.huffingtonpost.com/.../muslim-free-zone-gun-store-ruling_us_565d0170e4b079b2818b8dea

[SunsetRose]

No that's not what I'm referring to. This law can be applied in a way that discriminates against people of other religions. But thank you for the news story even though it did make me upset 😂

[QuestionMan]

Well this myTake was specifically a critique of making any laws that target groups specifically. The point is to allow anyone to refuse or allow service to anyone without state sponsorship or sanction of such an act. That way those businesses who choose to discriminate will lose customers and either change their views or go out of business.

[Electronica]

That video is disingenuous. Everybody that has grown up in American schools knows what the confederate flag, not even close to everyone knows what the ISIS flag is (I didn't either until I had to write a research paper on ISIS), Walmart employees included. I 100% doubt he went in there and said "this is an ISIS terrorist group battle flag, now make this cake". So trying to chalk this up to SJW is hacky at best.

[QuestionMan]

His cake specifically said "Heritage not Hate" so he was using it as a positive symbol even if you view it as a negative. Daesh is all over the news, you'd have to be completely ignorant to not know who they are. It's still a matter of choice, I would've made the Confederate flag cake with the words written on them. I however would not make a gay wedding cake since that's something that makes me uncomfortable.

People should feel free to provide or reject service to whomever they like.

[Electronica]

Walmart makes the rules not bigoted punk cashiers.

[QuestionMan]

Exactly, Walmart the business not the government decides what they sell.

[Electronica]

Exactly, the government didn't tell them to not sell confederate flags. But again you're being disingenuous trying to compare a fucking flag to discriminating against someone just because they happen to like people of the same sex. Not surprised an Eastern European is homophobic, tho.

[QuestionMan]

Do you even know what the word homophobic means?
It means fear of the same sex. I do not fear men or gays for that matter. My problem is when they act flamboyant and demand that I indulge in their lunacy. If they want to fuck in private that's their business but putting their sexuality on display like it's some fucking circus is disgusting.

[Electronica]

I imagine they feel the same way about straight PDA in public. Good on you for calling homosexuality "lunacy" though. You fit the Eastern European stereotype down to the letter, fluent in Russian, anti-gay and racist.

[QuestionMan]

I'm against all PDA. As for lunacy, it's their demand to force people who are uncomfortable around them to accept them. I'm all for tolerance but it must go both ways.
Racist?
If you took the trouble of reading my profile you'd know that I'm an egalitarian.

[SüßeJäger]

Apparently, it's ok to be a hypocrite if you belong to certain groups and others it's a terrible thing.

[SüßeJäger]

The supreme court has also ruled your labor is also private property. Forced labor is slavery. That's also one reason why (and many other reasons) income tax on individuals is unconstitutional. The s. c. has ruled so four times between 1895-1920 income tax is on individuals unconstitutional and has never been overturned but that's an entirely different subject but a very simple one to understand.

[Psi_Unknown]

If that is true then that would make it unconstitutional! Seems like I learn something new everyday! I would be curious to hear the rest of your stance on how income tax is unconstitutional, but as you mention, that is a different topic for a different day I suppose.

[Dingsbums]

I still think it's wrong to refuse service to whomever they see fit. Sounds reasonable but leaves space for discrimination. People need to be able to stay beyond themselves. Those people who are friendly to everyone have my respect

[QuestionMan]

This way we can get the racists to show themselves and be punished by the market.
It's the best way to eliminate discrimination because no one would be stupid enough to let their prejudices interfere with their business.

[Intraluminal]

But, and this is the part you cannot seem to understand, they WILL NOT be "punished by the market." The market doesn't really work like that. That only works in theory. In real life there are so many other factors that the theory just does not work. That's why economics is NOT predictive, because the theory and the reality are two different things. People are NOT "perfect consumers."

[Psi_Unknown]

@Intraluminal

That is a good point/counterpoint about the people not being perfect customers.

[Mustachekitteh]

I wonder if businesses were allowed to refuse who ever they seem fit. If majority of places end up having to close due to banning so many different groups. :D

[Transigence]

In my state they are. We can refuse to serve you because we don't like your face.

[Intraluminal]

Don't worry, the golden god has always spoken louder than any other God down south. The gays are just a small market down south. If they were a large market, the Southerners would be bent over and greased up for them.

[Mustachekitteh]

@Transigence I would probably be kicked out of a store just for having my upper lips pierced. :D

[Transigence]

No, we have plenty of people around wearing an extra 40lbs of surgical steel, jingling like a wind chime as they walk. That's normal enough around here :)

[Mustachekitteh]

@Transigence That sounds disturbing.

[redeyemindtricks]

@Mustachekitteh Upper lipS? Plural? Do explicate pls

[Mustachekitteh]

@redeyemindtricks I have both sides of my upper lip pierced. It's like a Monroe but on both sides.

[redeyemindtricks]

Got ya.

[redeyemindtricks]

And is that the genesis of yr username, then?

[Mustachekitteh]

@redeyemindtricks It's actually because of my cat who looks like she has a mustache. :D

[redeyemindtricks]

lol kk <3

[CandyStripes77]

Wow you wrote this quickly! But you wrote it really well. I think you made great arguments.

[QuestionMan]

Thanks you were a great inspiration :)

[CandyStripes77]

XD cool how did I help?

[QuestionMan]

You gave me that push that was needed for me to write this myTake through your vote of confidence.
I was thinking about writing about this topic a while but never had the inspiration to do it.
After your comment, I just sat down and started writing and it flowed beautifully.
:)

If you have any other ideas which you would like for me to write about feel free to PM.

[CandyStripes77]

Isn't it really cool when that happens? Like when you write and everything just goes so smoothly? That's when you know you have good points.

[NedfromtheNed]

Very good.

[QuestionMan]

Thanks :)

[skeptic007]

sounds good to me